Posted on 10/04/2005 8:05:40 AM PDT by Constitution Restoration Act
Rush Limbaugh is none too happy about President Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, saying it’s a selection "made from weakness.”
"There was an opportunity here to show strength and confidence, and I don’t think this is it,” Rush told listeners of his show, America’s most widely heard talk radio program.
"It seems to me from the outset that this is a pick that was made from weakness.
"There are plenty of known quantities out there who would be superb for the Court. This is a nominee that we don’t know anything about. It makes her less of a target, but also doesn’t show a position of strength.
"I have a tough time believing that if the White House didn’t feel embattled over all of this stuff with Hurricane Katrina and the war in Iraq and these poll numbers, the choice would have been somebody different, somebody that could immediately be tagged as an originalist, somebody who was in the same mold of Scalia and Thomas, who the president once told us were his ideals for the Supreme Court.
"The Democrats are saying some favorable things about Harriet Miers right now, led by dingy Harry (Reid), the Senate leader. He likes her very much. Almost like he’d like to marry her, he likes her so much.
"And when you start hearing the President’s opponents start talking about this in the way they’re talking about it, you have to have a red flag go up.
"But the main reason I don’t like this pick has nothing to do with Harriet Miers, because I don’t know her. I think the pick makes President Bush look weak. I think the pick is designed to avoid more controversy, to appease.”
Rush said Miers’ nomination "disappoints” him because he feels Bush might be losing a historic opportunity to take the Court in a definitely conservative direction.
"As I’ve said, the Court is the last refuge for the left. It is where they hope to institutionalize their beliefs and get their beliefs out of the arena of debate.
"This woman could end up being fabulous,” Rush acknowledged, but asked: "Why do we have to take the risk? Why do we have to roll the dice?”
I agree two. Ginsberg and Stevens
I agree with Rush.
I think that W has learned from his mistakes, such as Charles Pickering. You won't get a self-proclaimed conservative past the likes of Specter, Chaffee, and Collins. You need to give the RINO's, as well as some democrats cover in voting for judicial nominations. As Sun Tzu says, if you can win the war without a battle, that is the best. I like the fact that she is an evangelical Christian with a long history with W. That's good enough for me at this point.
Good one! Of course you're right.
"Plus, if there was a Clarence Thomas / Robert Bork kind of fight, his ratings would go through the roof."
"If there is not a big battle, then his ratings stay at a traditional off-election year level."
Apparently even the top conservative talk shows have been hit w/less audiences after the election. The left wing shows have been hit even harder.
Also...O'Connor was pretty good for a long time. It was only when it got to Casey did she start "growing". After that, she was pretty mixed and on the big cases she was a flop.
Why do we keep getting nominees that may or may not become "pleasant suprises"? We voted President Bush in because he promised us judicial nominees in the mold of a Thomas or Scalia. There were plenty of qualified people who fit the bill and were not "stealth" nominees. Why is our President so prone to being cowed by the dems and rinos in the senate?
I respectfully disagree. The American public wants a justice who believes "homosexual marriage" should not be imposed by judges, for example. If Bush took his case to the public, a majority would back him, and he would have the 51 senate votes he needs. He's shown he's not willing to make the case to the public, and that makes him look "weak," as Rush says.
That's what I mean - name calling is so tiring.
I agree with you, Rush MAY be wrong on this one. To his credit, and a fact everyone seems to miss, Rush stated he did not know this person and knew very little about her. I wouldn't want to be in a poker game with George Bush. This may be an end run around a terrible Senate blast with the result being a true constructionist nominee gaining a seat on the Supreme Court.
tiring
Was Souter considered a "stealth" nominee?
tiresome
Rush will support her starting today, listen and learn..
"I think that W has learned from his mistakes, such as Charles Pickering. You won't get a self-proclaimed conservative past the likes of Specter, Chaffee, and Collins."
Listen RINO, it was probably people like you who convinced some PA conservatives to vote for Arlen Specter last year. Bush pledged his support in the primaries, and also in the election.
IF god-damned RINOs like you didn't help to push Specter over a principled conservative like Toomey, then obviously Bush wouldn't need to worry about Specter's support. It is these watered down compromises that will destroy the base.
Conservatives are not in love with big spending, and legislating from the bench. If Bush can't get the important things right, there will be a major fallout. For *MANY* people - ie. enough people to determine whether Republicans win or lose elections - judicial nomination is the *ONLY* reason they have stuck with the Party.
Bush is the unholy love child of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. God damned RINO tory.
God bless Rush Limbaugh!
All this "Trust me, she'll turn out to be a good pick" is reminiscent of a line I heard a lot in 2000:
"Trust me, GWB is a conservative."
" also believe Bush will have the opportunity to select one more Justice before his term is over"
That's the inside-the-beltway buzz.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.